Summary
quashing district court's decision holding it impermissible to impose a sentence of probation for a first-degree felony punishable for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment
Summary of this case from State v. RinkinsOpinion
No. 80036.
May 20, 1993.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions, Fifth District — Case No. 91-1364 (Orange County).
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Paolo G. Annino and Anne Moorman Reeves, Asst. Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for respondent.
We review Ackers v. State, 601 So.2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (on rehearing), on the ground of express and direct conflict. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We recently held that it is permissible to impose probation upon a defendant found to be an habitual felony offender. McKnight v. State, 616 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1993). We therefore quash that part of the district court's decision that ruled to the contrary. Our decision does not affect the remaining components of the district court's opinion. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.